When talking to my mother the other day about some family history stuff, she lamented that, in our society, women have no names of their own. (Last names—talking ancestry, get it?) The fact that I didn’t mention this woman’s name and it was, from the comment thread, apparently up for discussion is more evidence of this problem.
Her name is Caitlin Upton. She’s a senior at Lexington High School. It’s tempting to be soft on her and say she choked, but if you’ve been training for so long to be on stage like that, things like that should come easy pretty quickly. Still, the amount of pressure on pageant contestants is pretty immense, so who knows? I imagine it’s like taking all the non-stop pressure on women to be perfect sex objects all the time and beefing it up like a weight-lifter on steroids. I’m amazed more women don’t crack by flinging their tiaras boomerang-style at the judges.
Victim/perpetrator of the patriarchy Miss South Carolina on why Americans can’t read maps.
John Hinderaker must be creaming his shorts right now. Pretty and stupid, too! It hasn’t been this good since the first half of The Stepford Wives.
122 Responses to “If you haven’t seen this yet….”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
It looked like a lot of the problem was that she was nervous. Nervousness triggers an adrenaline response, and adrenaline slows neural activity.
Wait a minute. 1/5th of American’s can’t find their OWN country on a map? Forget Ms., pardon me, Miss South Carolina for a minute and let’s figure out why these people are illiterate. Oh wait, that’s the question right?
Exactly, Gordo. And we all know that slowed neural activity in a person who has not used their brain very much (or been expected to use their brain very much or very much expected to NOT use their brain much, judging from the lack of lucid structure) is a very, very bad thing.
Okay it’s funny, but i can’t help thinking what an indictment of our education system, both the question and her answer.
And my daughter is supposed to revere these pageant dolls, why?
I have to say, I think she was extremely nervous because I’ve committed similar missteps: I’ve been interviewed in high-pressure situations (for a job, on TV) and when I was asked questions that I could normally give reasonable answers to, I instead gave completely incoherent replies because I was so tense. All the same, she should have been better prepared and this does feed into the demeaning stereotypes that beauty pageants continue to perpetuate.
Her response wasn’t any worse than our president’s when confronted with a surprise question. Dodge incoherently a bit, then turn the question into something about which you were prepared to talk. Only slightly less coherent than W. She could be president.
oh. my. gawd.
Because they don’t HAVE MAPS?
My head hurts.
Krusty: Amber, do you think the Bill of Rights is a good thing, or a
baaaaad thing?
Amber: Um…. [thinking `hard’]
Krusty: Take your time, dear.
Amber: Good thing. [flutters her eyelashes]
Judges: Awwwwww…
basically without all the hesitating and repeating it came out to “our education system should help south africa and iraq and asia to build up our future.” i just plain don’t understand why you would think to say that when asked that particular question. it’s weird.
also, “…and other countries like such as.” i agree it’s bush-esque.
Sigh. When she first started talking about people not having maps, I thought she might be going in the perfectly sensible direction of “Schools can’t afford/don’t have maps, so the kids don’t get taught how to read them or find things on them.”
But no such luck. Wow, that was an amazingly incoherent answer. I’ve answered questions better than that when under pressure in French - which I am not particularly fluent in.
Okay, the nervous thing only goes so far when you’re talking about pageants. These girl-women are coached and trained as intensely as athletes and they don’t end up in a national competition without first competing in several local and state competitions.
Yes, she was nervous about being asked to answer a question with no preparation, but her answer was still incoherent and indicates her own lack of education. My husband’s jaw is still on the floor even as I type this. He still can’t figure out what she was trying to say.
What the hell do South Africa and Iraq have to do with this? Was she afraid that she would have been considered one of the five who couldn’t find the USA on a map? If so, she nailed that question right to her botoxed forehead.
I think the W explanation is closer than we might like. Or McLaughlin Group or Rush Limbaugh or pick any other popular bunch of asshole pundits. When was the last time anyone who was anyone on a TV show actually listened to a question and formulated a thoughtful answer rather than grabbing for the closest keyword match to a bunch of canned phrases?
The intonation in particular struck me — for the most part it was not that of a person who had any idea of the meaning of the words she was saying. More like an actor reciting lines without having any idea of the motivation.
I think the question probably stunned her. I know if I was on stage, in front of lot’s of people, and someone asked me a question like that, my response would have been, “you’re shitting me?” I suspect that South Caroline probably wanted to the same thing. Either that or she was afraid she would have to find the U.S. on a map.
gordo, that’s what I thought, too. Looks like she got an unexpected question, and her nervousness made it difficult for her to put together an answer with all the associations she had going through her head (South Africa, Iraq, education, etc.). Can’t say I’d have done any better if I hadn’t known that question was a possibility beforehand.
My God. The perfect example of a perfect republican. What are the odds that this young lady has been home schooled?
Poor performance under pressure, yes, but it still seems kind of mean to judge people on their appearance and then make them perform (not terribly difficult, but still) feats of mental agility. Like demanding that this year’s Fields Medal winner model a swimsuit or fight a boxing match.
21st century remix..
Krusty: Amber, do you think the Bill of Rights is a good thing, or a
baaaaad thing?
Amber: Um…. [thinking `hard’]
Krusty: Take your time, dear.
Amber: Good thing. [flutters her eyelashes]
Judge John Hinderaker: Dhimmifascist! Negative 184 points!
I’d bet a lot of money she is the product of “public” schooling.
My guess would place her in an expensive private school that allowed her many absences for pageant-related activities. If you think social promotion is a problem in the public schools, just imagine how much a problem it is when mom and dad are the ones writing a check for $10-14K a year.
And if I ever thought I was about to be that incoherent, I’d ask for the question to be repeated. It may be a bit of an excuse to be nervous, but before answering a question it helps to actually know what it is. Her answer proves she didn’t. Unless she really is a moron.
I’m trying to be generous, but it’s really hard in this case. She was either too proud to ask for the question again or a moron. That she came across as a fool is entirely her fault either way.
Come on, people. Look at that tan! And the beading on her dress is divine.
If she won SC’s pageant, imagine the runners-up? Are they illiterate?
Lester Hunt–
I went to private schools from grade 4 through college. I met a lot of stupid people in those private schools.
Also, I think the “1 in 5 Americans can’t find the US on a map” statistic is bullshit. I’d really like to see the source.
To answer some of the speculation on this thread about education, the following can be easily found with google:
Her real name is Lauren Caitlin Upton; http://www.dancewithshadows.com/society/miss-teen-usa-2007.asp
“18-year-old Lauren has been on the high school varsity soccer team for the past four years. She has been inducted into the National Technical Honor Society. Lauren would like to design TV and movie special effects or become an international model. ”
From what I know about homeschooling, there aren’t generally honor societies (although the soccer would still be plausible since state athletic associations can take “homeschool teams” consisting of all homeschooled students in a metro area.)
Actually poked around a little more, she may have attended a vocational college while still in high school (many high school juniors/seniors do this to get 4-year college credits.) This isn’t the traditional NHS, which is based on (quite variable) standards of high school GPA requirements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Technical_Honor_Society
For some reason, I wanted to know the answer to this question, so I went to the web.
The woman in the video doesn’t seem to be Crystal Garrett, Miss South Carolina 2007-2008, who’s an African-American woman. I think she’s Shelley Benthall, Miss South Carolina 2006-2007.
Lester gets the nod; Ms. Benthall is indeed the product of public schools, having gone to West Florence High School before continuing on to Clemson, where she made the Dean’s List (wtf?), with a major in Community Recreation Management.
On the other hand, given that her “issue” was drug awareness, and that she wants to be a singer in a Christian country band, I think it’s safe to say that Roket can claim partial credit for the “perfect Republican” guess.
I hope this isn’t a double post.
For some reason, I wanted to know the answer to this question, so I went to the web.
The woman in the video doesn’t seem to be Crystal Garrett, Miss South Carolina 2007-2008, who’s an African-American woman. I think she’s Shelley Benthall, Miss South Carolina 2006-2007.
Lester gets the nod; Ms. Benthall is indeed the product of public schools, having gone to West Florence High School before continuing on to Clemson, where she made the Dean’s List (wtf?), with a major in Community Recreation Management.
On the other hand, given that her “issue” was drug awareness, and that she wants to be a singer in a Christian country band, I think it’s safe to say that Roket can claim partial credit for the “perfect Republican” guess.
Gordo–It’s something I’d have to think about carefully once I have children of the proper age; it was an enormous financial sacrifice for my parents and I am very indebted to them for it, and the friends I made and the academic preparation I got were excellent; however, I noticed that the overwhelming majority of the kids there lived in public districts that already were very high quality.
Also, some of the higher-ranked students in those schools competing for elite colleges say that it’s actually harder for them to get into said colleges than if they had gone to a public high school, since they’re competing against more elite applicants within their same high school.
Hmm, looks like my research of her background got stuck in moderation; however, I googled some more and it appears she attend(ed) Lexington, SC’s public high school, to answer the speculation posted on here.
Sorry, and I know I am stepping in it here but…
“Victim/perpetrator of the patriarchy Miss South Carolina”
Perpetrator? I mean, really, this is a teenage girl who has been raised he whole life to put Vaseline on her teeth and look pretty to the detriment of everything else. I am not sure I would call her a perpetrator any more than anyone else in her life. She is a product of a system.
I admit I chuckled, but am I the only one who felt really really bad for her?
Also, why was Lester so quick to think Unintelligent = public school? I thought it was: private school= money =/= intelligent.
I think listening to this has made like such as stupid now.
All I can say is: Thank God that wasn’t Courtney Brown!
I think that our neocon government’s obsession with more tax cuts for the richest 3,000,000 people and the cutting of important domestic progams are directly to blame for the fact that 20% of us — 60,000,000 Americans — not knowing where the US is on a map. It is a disgrace. And as a South Carolinian, I am disappointed in our Miss Teen representative.
“Also, why was Lester so quick to think Unintelligent = public school? I thought it was: private school= money =/= intelligent.”
Both are generalizations, as are the presumptions about her education upthread.
UC Berkeley >> Regent or Liberty, but low ranked directional state school
shoot, using carats must have absorbed my text.
I meant Harvard >> low-ranked directional state school, and the same analogy can be applied with high schools for the most part (with some obvious exceptions on both levels of of individually (in)famous alumni.)
20% of Americans can’t find America on a map? Wow…
She’s undoubtedly dumb… but she was clearly reaching to not say anything bad about America… wow. 20%. Just… wow.
I know at least one public school kid who’s now a physicist, and another who went to Harvard. Granted our teachers were aging hippies in rural Oregon, but I think it takes willpower on the part of parents to create children that stupid. It’s also the stated aim of the Rockefellers et. al. to create a low IQ middle class (sorry, can’t find the quote), but I think people have to work at it to be that ignorant. I blame the parents.
I have to admit, I probably would have answered equally incoherently. The part of me that would have answered something along the lines of increased access to education for underprivileged children would have been fighting with the bitter part of me that wanted to respond, “You know, if we were more interested in increasing a student’s access to Math, Science and US History than in decreasing a teenager’s access to reliable birth control and STD protection, we might have a more accurate image of our place on the world.”
Sadly, I know the more bitter part of me would win. It wouldn’t win me any titles, but damn, would it feel good!
As an aside, is anyone else having issues posting? I submit a post and it appears to have been accepted, but when the page reloads, the post doesn’t exist.
I rather sympathize with her. I remember one time I ran for some podunk high school student position. I had some support, but when I spoke to a school assembly, I was useless, only able to spout banalites and clichés, totally useless.
Even for me, there was no doubt that I had tanked. I hope I have improved.
But I can believe the map statistic. Here is a video that has been floating around the net for a while by the Australian program Spiked Humor “How Smart are Americans”.
http://spikedhumor.com/articles/76819/How_Smart_Are_Americans.html?autoplay=true
A map section is about 4 minutes in.
At Berkeley, the psychology building is named after Tolman, who maintained - proved, really - that rats have maps. (Printed on very small presses, one must imagine.)
She was nervous. Besides, I think it was a pretty good question considering who was asking it.
Is her pageant platform to buy maps for all the people who don’t have maps? I agree she was probably nervous but she should be a veteran of being on stage by now. Her answer was incoherent.
You can clearly see panic set in the moment the girl finishes the question, and granted, it’s kind of a dumb question to ask a contestant in a beauty pageant.
But damn. You can’t blame that kind of gibbering incoherence on nerves.
I’m not at all surprised that 1 in 5 Americans cannot read a map. I know a person who was thrilled to find out that her husband had been transferred to Alaska because the map she consulted shows that Alaska is really close to Hawaii!
where’s the vid?
Just FYI-
20% (yep, 1/5th) of adults in this country are “functionally illiterate.” You will find stats that say only 1% of America is “illiterate,” but those numbers are based on the years of school a person has attended, and not actual reading/writing/life skills levels - which is defined by most adult literacy agencies as 5th grade level. So, the 20% figure for map skills would be right in line.
Not everyone is smart; the real shame here is not that Miss SC isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, it’s that she’s been groomed (quite literally) to trade on her strongest “asset” - her looks - and then be humiliated for being “stupid.” Beauty pageants are about beauty, period. They are not about brains, or world peace, or saving orphans All of this “scholarship pageant” shit is utter nonsense, and it was created so that people wouldn’t view pageants as demoralizing, so that the industry could keep on going with a clear conscience. And, that, people is bullshit. Pageants are sexist (there is no male equivalent), but they will continue as long as people watch them, and as long as young women and little girls are told that their worth is tied up in their looks.
Jovan wrote:
Oh, good grief! Mostr of us went to school before there was a significant amount of federal aid to education, and I’d guess that most of us here can find the US and other major countries on the map. (I’d excuse those who couldn’t find Uzbekistan.)
I went to public school in the 1960s and very early 1970s, in a poor Southern town, with schools supported primarily by local taxes, with no computers (the PC hadn’t been invented), a single mimeograph machine the teachers fought over to get tests and homework assignments copied, one prioncipal, no assistant principals, just a couple of people working in the office, and teachers who had nothing but their Bachelors. Yet somehow, someway, we all learned what we were expected to learn.
The whole women’s last name issue is a weird one (taking on the first issue mentioned because I find that more interesting than some people are ditzes). It doesn’t really affect me, individually, because I have my mom’s last name, didn’t take my husband’s, and our children will probably have my last name. But I am constantly amazed at women who take their husband’s name or give their children the father’s name without even thinking. I have an acquaintance, who’s a very smart, independent young woman, recently married (7/7/07 - the “magic” date that saw 3 times as many weddings as a normal summer saturday - and, coincidently, the day my mom’s neighbor was shot in the head by his girlfriend’s abusive exhusband) and just recently got her PhD. Now her facebook status says “[HerName] is now Dr. [HisLastName]!” And I just don’t get it. She worked so hard for the title, just to put it in front of someone else’s name. And I don’t even know how to ask her why.
When talking to my mother the other day about some family history stuff, she lamented that, in our society, women have no names of their own.
In a graveyard in Scotland this summer, I was reminded all over again that the concept that a woman changes her name on marriage never permanently caught on in Scotland: so many graves with women who had been buried under their own, legal names. “Margery Ann Gloster, wife of Stephen Choud, and their son, Adam Choud”…. makes it clear that while Margery was married to Stephen, and their child had the same surname as his father, Margery never lost her own surname.
We perpetuate the myth that women do not have our own surnames by repeating the meme that a woman has “her father’s name or her husband’s”. She never does: her surname is always her own name, even if she legally changes it to be the same as her husband’s (which, I hope, fewer and fewer women will) and even if she’s given the same surname as her father on her birth certificate. It is on her birth certificate: It is her name.
That said, the big fight about making a woman change her surname to be the same as her husband’s isn’t over, but it’s clear that the big fight about a woman giving her children the same surname as her own is going to be even more vicious.
I agree, but I hate that. If it’s coming out of my body, it should have my name. If there’s a default it should be matrilineal, but trying to get most people to see it shouldn’t always always always be patrilineal is less productive than hitting a brick wall.
Jesurgislac, were you by any chance doing Scottish geneology? If so, feel free to write to compare notes, t525881@verizon.net.
Also, as you may know, the Picts (the original inhabitants of most of Scotland, there in Roman times and long before) were matrilineal.
Oh, I agree that your name is yours, but just that society doesn’t see it that way, which is why society deems that it should be a simple thing for a woman to drop a name she’s had her whole life, regardless of how she got it.
Through a handful of illegitimate births, however, the matrilineal side of my great-grandfather’s family was not lost easily—even though they eventually got back to marrying and passing on names through the father’s side, the name “Piers” that was passed through many women still lives on in my family as a first name. Turns out I’m related to Sir John Piers, who seduced the wife of the beloved fighter for Irish rights Baron Cloncurry Lawless.
Yes, her answer was stunningly incoherent, but what would you have said? I don’t really know how I would have answered that in such a setting (not that I would ever be in such a setting) where saying that Americans are stupid or our educataion system sucks isn’t really acceptable. And I don’t really know that that’s the answer. I went to public school, and my education featured plenty of maps. I just feel bad for her.
I agree, but I hate that. If it’s coming out of my body, it should have my name. If there’s a default it should be matrilineal, but trying to get most people to see it shouldn’t always always always be patrilineal is less productive than hitting a brick wall.
I absolutely agree, but I think that maybe part of the problem is that because men *don’t* contribute anything other than the sperm, and most men contribute very little of the time and energy, the idea is to give the man the sense that he is invested in the kid, too. Otherwise it seems like it’s totally the woman’s child and the man is just an interested bystander.
I did end up giving both my biological children my husband’s name, but this is because my husband has a cool name, it is higher in the alphabet than mine, and most importantly, he has two older children who are my stepkids, who I’ve been raising as my own since they were toddlers, and giving my bio kids my name while the older kids have his name would contribute to a sense that they are somehow not as related as full-blood siblings. I have always wanted *all* my children to feel fully related to each other and to me. So the little ones got their dad’s name because it is also their older siblings’ name, and because I wouldn’t give a kid Rogers when Carpe (as in “carpe diem”) was available. (My husband actually made the same decision himself; he was Walker until he chose to be adopted by his stepfather at age 11 or so, and the coolness of the name was part of his decision.)
However, had my husband’s name been, say, Carpig (the first Ellis Island take on romanizing the name until his stepfather’s ancestors changed it again to Carpe), I would have totally made the babies Rogers. In fact I might have strongly suggested we *all* be Rogers.
I myself did not change my name because it’s *my name*. I have less angst and consternation over naming my kids because until they have a name they don’t have a name; one doesn’t change a child’s name, one assigns it. The idea that you change the name you have had your whole life for any reason other than you absolutely despise it or you’re in hiding from the Mob is ridiculous to me. Rogers is not the Best Name Evah, but it’s *my* name.
Nuttin sexy about that.
Just.
Painful.
Ouch.
Drugs?
On the name thing, and geneology, isn’t it Spain where people have two surnames- they choose one from their mother and one from their father? I like that idea, because it preserves both lines. I was reminded reading this, that my grandfather managed to trace our male ancestors back 500 years, but the women? No chance. The only way to preserve both is a double surname system. I don’t see why not, and it would give women a bit of an idea about where their female ancestors came from.
it would give women (and men) a bit of an idea about where their female ancestors came from.
doremi, what about the idea that female offspring get the mother’s last name, and male descendants get the father’s? Women carry their mother’s mother’s mother… etc.’s name, and men carry their father’s father’s etc. Unlikely to ever happen, but an interesting idea nonetheless.
“I absolutely agree, but I think that maybe part of the problem is that because men *don’t* contribute anything other than the sperm, and most men contribute very little of the time and energy, the idea is to give the man the sense that he is invested in the kid, too.”
That seems like overthinking it to me. Surely it’s just the old wife-and-children-are-property thing.
wow.
well, she sure is pretty, so that’ll get her somewhere in life I’m sure.
re: the name game - I think I might make up my own last name and have it legally changed. Then, my name will be my own invention and have nothing to do with any patriarchally defined notion of family.
Oh, that poor kid. That extremely painful sequence is destined to be on the Internet until the end of time.
Doremi, I don’t think they do that in Spain, but I know they do that in Latin America. It’s a little better than defaulting to the father’s name, but in the long term it’s not much better for preserving women’s history. See, while a kid will get two last names (example: Martina Sanchez Rodriquez) one from the father, one from the mother, those name do not live on indefinitely. What normally happens is that she’ll marry someone else with two last names (José Perez Indio) and then they each their children only one name, the name they inherited from their fathers. (Maria Perez Sanchez). The children go on to marry and have kids, and the grandchildren take on the names their parents inherited from their fathers (Pedro Perez -somethingelse-). I probably confused everyone with that, but the end result is that a woman’s name is lost by time she has grandchildren, though a man’s name lives on as long as he has male decedents. Sure, it’s a lot better than losing your name in marriage, and your name even goes on for another generation, but it’s not like latina girls can look through their family history and see generation after generation of women with the same name as them the way boys can, nor can they expect to pass on the family name and have it continue for generations after them and their children. So, better, but not equal.
I don’t come to feminist sites to make fun of the “dumb blonde.”
What are you taking on tomorrow - sluts or spinsters?
doremi, Marle:
My daughter has my surname, due to her “illegitimacy” but when her father and I get married, I take his name(his name is cooler than mine, and sounds better) and we are going to add her father’s name to her legal name, if she wants it. It will help “official” people keep our family straight, and we think it would be cool. I had the opportunity to change my last name when I was teen, but it was worse than what I already had, so I passed.
It’s undeniable that the young woman made a fool out of herself, but I’m mainly just bothered that promoting and then picking apart shiny, groomed, striving-to-be-famous young women has become such a part of public discourse.
I don’t really feel sorry for her–she obviously did want to be in the public spotlight, which carries risks she should have known about and prepared for–but I also don’t think I should be in a position to have any kind of opinion about her. I shouldn’t know about her at all, but instead I’ve already gotten the link to this video from many sources, without asking for it. I don’t like that so many people are so gleefully passing this link around. It says something nasty about a culture in which so many people are so eager to publicly tsk and cackle about this, or about public displays of Paris Hilton’s body,or about Lindsay Lohan’s rehab, or about other screwed-up behaviors of primped young women that have no bearing on any of the commenters’ lives.
True, and I bet the internet notoriety will find her a husband quickly enough. Plenty of guys out there who think dumb is charming.
I know what you mean, Rose. I feel a little icky even talking about this clip, but hopefully my take will not be seen as attacking her ad hominem. It isn’t what I mean to do.
What I wanted to add was, what really strikes me about that clip is that it’s clear she was told by a coach or parent that, while answering a question, never, never, never stop talking. I can’t figure out why people think that’s a good idea. Doesn’t it make more sense to actually show people you’re thinking? Or, are you really going to lose the pageant by taking a second, exhaling and saying “Gee, tough question”? Little pauses draw people in.
Blather just and always sounds like blather. You wouldn’t even have to be able to speak English to know that was a ridiculous answer.
Oh yeah, last names: I always thought the idea of a woman taking her husband’s last name was completely bizarre. One of the few things my now-ex-wife and I agreed on was that her taking my name would be completely ridiculous.
On the other hand, 1) children have to get someone’s last name; 2) using the mother’s last name is perhaps justified in an evening-the-scales sense but is intrinsically no fairer and 3) hyphenated last names are no long-term solution. What happens when one kid with a hyphenated name marries another? What do they call their kids? Do they have to choose? If they have to choose, why don’t we?
These are not rhetorical questions, or at least they’re not intended to be. I don’t claim to have any answers; does anyone here?
Ah I see what you’re saying Marle. I didn’t know the name that was passed on by both parents was by default the fathers. Hmm. I like your idea Grendelkhan. As you say, unlikely to ever happen in our current culture… but a good idea nonetheless.
“1) children have to get someone’s last name”
why?
Awwww! I think she’s cute. And those mean judges cut her off after “…for the future” when she was obviously going to say, “…for the future of our children.”
After all, children are our future and without a future where would you be?
‘N’ how are you going to tell where you are going to be without being able to read maps in South Africa and the Asian countries?
I ask you that!
I went to a public school. I can find the United Staes on a map.
I can also find The Iraq.
I went to public school and can draw a map of the United States. Beat that!
But, seriously, much like the plot of Madame Bovary, knowing what the world looks like isn’t relevant knowledge to most Americans. You don’t need it to get a job, buy your food, clean your house, learn any number of new skills/hobbies, take care of your health or (in most cases) maintain your social network.
And sadly, it isn’t seen as very relevant to civil duties and the like. This is reinforced by many people’s schooling, where huge chunks of the world are glanced over or completely left out of the curriculum during the entire 13 years of classes. For all I had a pretty decent education, we never studied Africa, Australia, Asia or South America unless their history overlapped with the history of Europe or the U.S.
Honestly, it’s not like we didn’t have time for it, but we spent all our time in history class learning what we learned wrong the year before, and how it really happened.
“1) children have to get someone’s last name”
why?
thank you. There seem to be an awful lot of unchallenged assumptions going on in this discussion.
I agree, but I hate that. If it’s coming out of my body, it should have my name. If there’s a default it should be matrilineal, but trying to get most people to see it
What’s so damn special about YOU that YOU deserve your own name, but your child doesn’t?
I realize it’s a moot point given the functioning of society as it is, But default Matrilineal still means you don’t get your own name, just your mom’s instead of your dad’s.
Personally, I like the spanish model as discussed earlier, but there are plenty of other naming practices that work, too. the scandinavian model, where you have a family name tucked in, but your LAST name amounts to “son or daughter of ____” Which is named after your parent, but obviously still your name, not theirs. In general, the petronym, if changed to a more gender neutral identity, I think represents one of the more balanced approaches that could be taken.
Damn…You have to work hard to be that stupid. I grew up in Sierra Leone (West Africa) and the geography I learned is better than what my younger brother is learning right now (Canada). Not surprising, since a classmate of mine once asked what continent Canada was in…with a straight face
Actually I have my mother’s last name. I inherited it at birth, and it became my name. When I have children, they will inherit it at birth and it will become their name. I didn’t realize that would hit a sore spot.
How is that any better in terms of children getting their own name?
I think you mean “patronym” . I guess we could mutilate the patronym to include both parents names and child instead of son, so instead of being Peterson it would be PeterJessicachild, for example. Though that might get a little awkward, and would defeat one of the points of last names, which is a connection to extended family and previous generations (not that any system does that perfectly since there’s no sane way to make a system that’s both matrilineal and patrilineal). It also is too tied to the nuclear family concept, which most kids don’t live in anymore.
I don’t think there is a perfect solution. I think that we should just let people decide what they want for themselves and their children, and have fairness come in diversity.
If I were a woman, I’d sure as hell want to keep my own name (my wife did), and I’d sure as hell want my kid to get my name, too.
Thing is, as a man, I wanted my kid to have my name — you know how it is. Luckily, cultural tradition and the letter of the law backed me up. Oops, sorry ’bout that! Now, if you’ll excuse me, I must run along to the Club …
I’m never a fan of beauty pageants, but I just feel sorry for her. She’s young, nervous, rambling and incoherent.
Thank you, Marle. I think you’re getting at what I’m trying to get.
As for “why?” have last names at all, I guess there’s no life-or-death reason - theoretically, you could just give your kid one name. There’s also no reason not to name your kid Moonflower, but similarly, know the hassles you’d be getting your kid into.
Rachel and karpad - do you have children? And do they have last names? If your answers to these questions are not “yes” and “no,” in that order, you’re being pretty glib, don’t you think?
Marle, my basic complaint with your view as offered (it seems I was unclear) was in the framework of the objection to patrilinial naming in that “a woman doesn’t get her name, she has her father’s, then her husbands.”
changing names at marriage is an entirely different discussion (sort of) but if You have “your father’s name, not your name” then having your mother’s name is just as bad.
I’d think a reasonable structure is the patronym variant simply because creating lines of family history seems vain and creepy in more than a few ways. It’s wonderful if your great great grandparent was important, but that doesn’t really have any bearing on you as a person, certainly not the way your parents do. with a patronym variant, you’d be able to draw a direct connection to the parents with ease, and then to each of their parents, if you want to keep going back. It makes a family into a chain, not a tree where the great patriarch or matriarch or whomever is all important. Legacies irritate me. I’m a professional historian, and legacies irritate me.
fairness through diversity would be wonderful, provided we did not have a legal status quo of the norm “and then the weirdos.” Which you advocated for just as much. Matrilinial is still Linial.
Traditionally, Icelandic names use the parent’s name plus a suffix to indicate descent, so Heithr and Anders’ daughter, Anna, would be Anna Heithrsdottir, and their son Gunnar would be Gunnar Andersson. In cases of bastardy (humour me for the term), the child would get the name of the parent who would acknowledge them (the mother), so you might wind up with someone named Baldur Heithrson. (Icelandic people aren’t using this system as much anymore, having drifted towards a system of nomenclature more like the North American standard, more’s the pity.)
Personally, I think if I’m ever crazy enough to commit matrimony (I want to reserve my room in the Old Spinsters’ Home, Amanda, please and thank you), I’m keeping my name; it makes keeping track of one’s publications ever so much easier.
About the tool of the patriarchy in the video — Isn’t the cover story for a pageant supposed to be that it’s some kind of skills development charm school kind of programme, aimed at developing “poise” and suchlike? Seems to me that anyone should be able to extemporise a fifteen-second coherent answer to any question, especially if one has been long since groomed to be presentable on stage…
Oh, I agree that your name is yours, but just that society doesn’t see it that way, which is why society deems that it should be a simple thing for a woman to drop a name she’s had her whole life, regardless of how she got it.
My husband has been correcting his elders as of late. It seems that PROPER etiquette demands that we be Called “Dr. Kate and Mr. Zog” and that I am NEVER to be called “Mrs. Zog” ever ever again!
Not that it was ever acceptable, in my book, to address me as “Mrs. Hisfirst Hislast”, but now it is very much against proper etiquette as learned by said elders!
It makes a family into a chain, not a tree where the great patriarch or matriarch or whomever is all important.
But there are a lot of other ways to think about surnames. Most European surnames are connected to a place, a type of work, a clan, or some other detail that identified who the family was, as a group. They only became a “tree” headed by some long-lost “Patriarch” and not a functional descriptor when they started to be inherited and not individually (or collectively) crafted.
I have one of those kinds of surnames, and I kind of like it. It helps, of course, that my last name is superficially related to what I really do for a living. That makes it feel more like My Name, and not my father’s name.
I have to say I wouldn’t mind going back to surnames that are direct descriptors rather than inheritances.
Simple solution to the name thang:
Keep your “family” name (your father’s name, you hypenated father-mother’s name, your porn star name, whatever you want it to be) after you get married.
Then, when you have children, hyphenate *their* names to indicate both lineages. Or make up a last name for the sheer hell of it.
Yeah, Foucault, that works for about two generations, and before you know it, you’re dealing with the young Ms. Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, which is a dang mouthful.
The system doesn’t scale; try again.
Well, what about allowing the children to pick their favorite name once they are old enough to do so?
Should I ever have kids, I will use my own last name as their last name. My partner will be acknowledged on the birth certificate in hyphenated form, but the child will go to school bearing *my* name. (not Foucault’s name, though that is a nice name, if I do say so myself).
It took a while to train my relatives and friends to send letters to our house using *my* last name, rather than using my husband’s name (I think this is the first time I have mentioned here that I am married).
I simply refused to respond to any mail not addressed to me, and made a point of explaining to my mother and friends why this was the case. They soon got the message. Now, people even address my husband by my last name. I find that rather amusing, as does he.
But I was very angry and unimpressed when random strangers (and intimate friends) tried to decide for me how I was going to be acknowledged because I had made a life transition. Now they know…
no, rick, i don’t have kids. why would that preclude me from having the opinion that out of an entire world of last names, only choosing between four possible options (biomom name, non-biomom name, merged name, hyphenation) is pretty ridiculous.
my partner and i have pretty boring, awkward last names and regardless of the kids we do or don’t have, i can’t remotely think of a reason why they should be saddled with one of them. maybe we’d trace our ancestry and find decent last names, maybe we’d pay more attention to last names we hear on the street. most likely we’d pick the first/middle/last name combination that works the best and stick with that. i suppose it’s easiest and requires less brainwork to narrow it down to the most obvious two, but i don’t see why that’s the default. even matrilineal names are silly in their way. as we’ve been saying, maternity is easy to point to. fatherhood is pretty optional. outside of that, just pick what sounds the best.
I never said that. I don’t have either my father’s or my husband’s name, so obviously I don’t think that women don’t get their own names, only men’s names. Even if I had my dad’s name, it would be mine by now anyways. I’ve never subscribed to the view that women don’t ever have their own names.
My issue with patrilinial naming is that it’s seen as always the defaut, and rarely do parents even think of hyphenating both their names for the child. I’ve seen women give their child the father’s last name, even when they’re not married and he’s not all involved on the *hope* that maybe he will be, but then it turns out he isn’t and then the kid gets raised in a family where s/he is the only one with that last name, and it’s really isolating for them. They feel like they aren’t even a part of their own family because everyone else has one last name and they have another, and it doesn’t help when health insurance and schools and everyone else is questioning if they really are a part of that family. Stupid situations like that could be avoided if people looked at their situation and made the last name choices that would actually be best, but it seems no one does that, patrilinity is the only answer.
No, I didn’t. I said if we have to have a default, matrilinial makes the most sense, but I don’t want a default, I want people choosing what’s best for themselves. You’re the one who keeps pushing for a patronym system, which has its own problems. My family tree is way too complicated and not nearly nuclear enough for a patronym system to have worked. Maybe it could work out well for your family, but this is why we shouldn’t have one system for everyone.
This young woman did no worse answering the question than Tony Snow would have done.
But Tony Snow gives the equivalent performance almost every day, and gets paid for it. Didn’t one journalist even tell him that he didn’t speak English?
As to Map Knowledge and other stuff. Here is a National Geographic study comparing young Americans to those from other countries. Not very comforting.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/geosurvey2002/download/RoperSurvey.pdf
.
That’s just mean, Amanda.
Amanda:
I asked Valerie if she wanted to keep her maiden name, but she didn’t know her father as he deserted her mother, so she took my father’s surname.
Now explain to me again how Valerie is a stooge of the patriarchy when she uses the surname she has used for 30 years, but Amanda is a freedom fighter for using the name of the Marcotte patriarch. Sorry I just don’t get it. You get to keep your patriarchy approved slave name (what was the surname your mother held so dear as a child? Do you know? Do you care? Is it relevant?) but others are wrong to use the naming system this patriarchy has approved.
Drop the Marcotte and just use Amanda or you are as much a stooge of the patriarchy (we know, the patriarchy you grew up with and identify with, so it’s OK) as a woman who changes her name for her husband.
I’m glad to see that their is a site with some intelligent people who are willing to give this girl a break! I am sure that she was plenty nervous. She is just a kid. All of us in our lives have done something or said something really stupid. This girl was just unfortunate enough to have done it on national television. Chin Up! Miss South Carolina!!
In cases of bastardy (humour me for the term), the child would get the name of the parent who would acknowledge them (the mother), so you might wind up with someone named Baldur Heithrson.
Yeah, didn’t Bjork do that with one of her children? I might have imagined that, though…
Epistemology:
So why did you keep your patriarchy approved slave name, and even passed it on to someone else, if it’s so wrong. Why is it that women who don’t want to take our husbands’ names get it thrown back at them that they still have “a man’s name” while men never get questioned about their names? Sure, you refer to your last name as your father’s, but you don’t really believe it’s not yours, otherwise you would have realized that you were bitching out Amanda for doing the same thing you’ve done, keeping your name. But I guess you don’t see women as having our own names, only men then.
Change your name to your wife’s maiden name or stop bitching at women who won’t change their names and think that women shouldn’t be expected to. There’s a big fucking difference between keeping the name you’ve had since you were a baby (irregardless of who had the name before) and dropping the name you’ve had your whole life just because you want to get married. If you weren’t so focused on justifying spreading your name to your wife you would have noticed that, and realized you’re the one being a hypocrite, not Amanda.
All things considered, perhaps my spouse and I should have taken my mother’s maiden name. I didn’t like my birth name and Krummenacker, while being kind of pretty, is a pain to sign 25 times in a row on complicated forms.
Rachel, no one’s precluding you from having an opinion on anything. “Why” and “ridiculous” are not opinions. They’re STFU’s in sheep’s clothing.
I wanted to ascertain whether the flip, glib, unhelpful one-word answer I was getting had come from someone who hadn’t come face-to-face with the situation in their own life. Thanks for the confirmation.
Marle, you’re making the most sense here. THanks for the enlightenment.
oh, you were asking if my questioning you why kids can only have one of their parents’ last names came from someone who hadn’t had the situation come up in her own life? well, you’re wrong there, i definitely *have* dealt with it.
but no, i don’t have kids.
Marle:
Perhaps I misunderstood Amanda. I thought she was arguing that it’s OK to keep the name of her father but my wife Valerie should feel guilty for keeping the name she’s had for 30 years and shares with four children.
I argue for people keeping the names they want without feeling guilty for supporting the patriarchy. If Amanda can do it with her father’s name, Valerie can do it with mine.
I have been married twice, my first wife did not take my name, with no objection from me, and I suggested Valerie do the same, but she declined because she had NO affection for her father who deserted her mother before Valerie even knew him.
I wrote the post you responded to at 2:30 in the morning, as you can see, and perhaps I expressed myself inarticulately (as if I need sleepiness as an excuse for that), but I am arguing that these things are so personal and specific, not just to Amanda but to us all, that it is wrong to judge people for the names they feel comfortable with.
I recall the debate when Cassius Clay changed his name to Muhammad Ali. It seemed to me that we should call people what they want to be called. It still seems so to me.
I agree it would be sexist of me to insist my wife take my name, I didn’t. It is not acquiescence in sexism for Valerie to want to change hers.
“It is not acquiescence in sexism for Valerie to want to change hers.”
yes it is. you can dress it up in whatever fancypants language you need to, but you can’t fool yourself into thinking it’s not sexism that dictates how people name themselves and others. good for you for not insisting she take it. seriously, i admire men who can get over themselves and their own names. but such a tradition is based on pure sexism and claiming to have unique reasons for doing it doesn’t change it.
Rachel,
I thought you were asking why kids have to have last names in general? Maybe if your initial question was more than just “Why?” in response to “children have to get someone’s last name” we would have realized you were questioning the someone, not last name.
But, ok. People can give their child both parents last names, it does happen. I think the only criticism here on two last names was me saying that it usually winds up being patrilineal anyways, which it does. Unless you’re saying that everyone should give their kids two last names, I don’t think you’re actually arguing with anyone here. But I’m not sure what you’re arguing. Can you clarify?
of course kids need a last name, but why does it have to be one of their parent’s names? it makes as much sense as anything to just pick any three name combination that sounds the best. or if you want to name a kid after an important person in your life but they have a sucky first name, give them that person’s last name. or, really, whatever works. but to say that the kid *has* to have “someone’s” last name is unnecessarily short-sighted.
Epistemology:
I don’t think Amanda said anyone should feel guilty, but I’ll let her speak for herself.
The thing is, there is a difference between keeping the name you’ve always had, even if it was the name your father or grandfather or some other man had, and taking the name of someone else when you’ve already established your identity with one name. Sure, your wife changed her name long ago and I don’t think anyone would argue she needs to change it back *now*, but the issue about why women change names in the first place, not why they aren’t changing back. Her situation actually ties back into the issue of naming children, because if patrilineal naming wasn’t the default she would have probably gotten her mother’s name. Would she have changed her name so willingly if she shared her last name with her mom, who I presume she would have affection for? Or, to reverse it, what if it was you who didn’t know the father you share a name with? Would you have taken her name with the willingness she took yours? The question can even be asked why, if she didn’t like her name, she didn’t have it changed long before she met you, instead of leaving her name up to the chance of whoever she married. But the patriarchy only gave her the options of having her father’s name or her husband’s. Many women don’t see that they have other options. Yes, people should choose what they are called, but those decisions aren’t made in a vacuum. When society strongly imposes one way, that’s not a free choice. Of course she’s not a bad person, but she didn’t have a free decision about her last name. Though frankly, neither did you. I’ve heard a lot of men complain about their last names, but none of them changed to their wives’ names.
Thank you, Rachel; now we can talk.
I reckon you can give a child a last name (or a name in general) that reflects pretty much anyone; you just need a good answer when the kid asks why her name is what it is. “It sounded good” probably wouldn’t cut it, but a historical explanation would work.
You also, however, would need to explain why her name isn’t one of her parents’ names when all the other kids in school have one of their parents’ names as last names. And she’ll ask this question way before she’s old enough to understand the concepts we’re talking about on this thread.
None of which necessarily precludes doing it, but it’s more to think about.
“It sounded good” probably wouldn’t cut it”
it’s a good answer when someone asks why they were given their first name, though. unless they were obviously named after someone and they know that person, or whatever.
“when all the other kids in school have one of their parents’ names as last names”
i don’t … really see that as being much of a problem. granted, i don’t know much about child psychology, but would the average 5 year old really get an identity crisis because her last name doesn’t follow a clear familial line? would she truly get sent into a spiral of depression when i tell her that i named her after my favorite author/friend/aunt? genuine questions here, you’re the one with the kids. but i can say that i don’t really remember being cognizant of last names in elementary school and i can’t imagine it being all that confusing for a 6 year old to understand that she has the same last name as her mom’s grandmother, or whatever. at least, not much more difficult to understand than people who have divorced/remarried families, all of whom may share different last names.
frankly, i imagine she’ll be more traumatized by being the only second grader to not own a tv because her mother hates tv! and if i could handle the question “why the fuck can’t i watch cartoons like every other 7 year old in the world”** then i could probably handle questions about her name.
**not saying i *could* handle such questions. i’d probably cave.
oh wait. i just remembered being 6-ish years old and somehow figuring out that my BFF had a different name than her mother and being really, really confused by it. i understood that her parents were divorced but i didn’t understand how she could live in the same house with someone and not share the same last name. i thought it was a rule. it didn’t occur to me to tease her over it though. which is another thing, you can’t completely control over whether or not kid will be teased. you can avoid naming them moonbeam or whatever, but if the kid is going to get teased, it’s going to get teased regardless.
No, I don’t reckon a 6-year-old will have an identity crisis over her last name. But there will be questions; she just has to have good, simple 6-year-old-level answer ready. A good explanation of who her namesake is will go a long way. Funny - it sounds like you were more confused by your friend’s name situation than she was.
As for your second post, yeah, there’s a balance to be struck. As you say, “Moonbeam” isn’t such a great idea; neither is “Gandhi,” as admirable as he may be. On the other hand, the last name of some absent sperm inflictor isn’t a good idea either. So there should be something in between. Different strokes for different families, as Marle says. Things seem to be improving on that score, no?
rachel:
i agreed with you upthread and was slapped down. If Valerie uses the patriarchy’s naming conventions, and it’s wrong, then when Amanda uses Marcotte it is equally wrong. Correct?
no. an infant has no control what its parents call it. a wife has nothing but control on what everyone in her life calls her. if she uses that control to make people call her by her spouse’s name, that’s sexist. not saying she’s an inherently bad/sexist person and it makes her less of a feminist. but it’s a decision that can’t be considered unsexist.
if my last name is not my name because it’s also my father’s, then my middle name is also not my own because it was originally my grandmother’s and my first name is also not mine because it was originally my mother’s friend’s name. i didn’t have a choice what my parents called me. i have a choice what to call my kids though. that’s where the sexism comes in. if you blithely pass along the father’s name, *you* are engaging in a sexist act. your *child* is not making a sexist decision by keeping the name her parents chose.
Some of you might be interested that Bridget Moynihan has named her son (with NFLer Tom Brady) John Edward Thomas Moynihan.
Conniption fits have already begun.
rachel:
I am arguing that the naming conventions are unfair and patriarchal, but everyone should be supported in what they do in their own life.
My previous wife hadn’t changed her name, and I urged Valerie to follow that example. I really don’t think my feelings were unusual, being young and in love, I wanted to listen to the music Val did, see the movies she was interested in, meet the people she was close to, to drink in everything that was Valerie (I’m still infatuated, but I won’t bore you further) and felt like I was undermining who she was, even tainting her, by giving her my name. Our first child has her maiden name as a middle name.
But Valerie didn’t want her father’s name as he was alcoholic and abandoned Val’s mother shortly after her birth. She didn’t change it earlier, because she was quite young (kids were younger back then).
In this weak patriarchy a woman does have the right to control what she wants people call her, if she can take the undeniable pressure. Any of us can choose a name.
To choose your father’s name is hardly striking a blow for feminism. But it is perfectly valid if it is right for Amanda, or any others. Can you extend the same consideration to Val?
What do you think about the logic of people like Muhammad Ali who refused to keep a name he felt was evidence of his demeaning by our racist society?
I want to get the hierarchy correct here:
Valerie has caved to the patriarchy,
Amanda did, but was so young that she can’t be blamed,
And those who make up new names for themselves, are true feminists.
Actually, I don’t much disagree with that formulation, but I would certainly cut slack to Amanda, Val, or anyone else, and respect the name they wanted be called. To acknowledge each individual’s right to do so goes to basic human decency in my mind. I respect you enough to call you what you choose.
Epistemology, I don’t think Valerie should be blamed for taking your name. I’m not a big fan of blaming women for making personal choices that only affect their own lives. While it’s possible that if society was less patriarchal she would have had her mother’s name and wouldn’t have changed it, but that didn’t happen so we don’t know.
I do however, disagree that Amanda or anyone else “chose” their father’s names. A woman’s name is her own, irregardless of who had it before, and babies don’t choose their names. Yes, Valerie’s name is obviously her own now, despite the fact that she choose to make it match yours. The debate is not so much who’s a bad feminist, but why is it ok for women, and not just women who hate their last names, and even expected that they will drop their names and not pass them onto their children? Men who hate their names aren’t expected to take their wives’ names, and are even looked at as very weird for doing so. The issue isn’t that Valerie changed her name years ago, the issue is that women are expected to even if they don’t want to or even if their husbands would rather change their names.
epistemolog: Perhaps I misunderstood Amanda. I thought she was arguing that it’s OK to keep the name of her father
Why on Earth are you trying to argue that Amanda Marcotte has “her father’s name”? She doesn’t. Nor did your wife Valerie have “her father’s name”. That’s just evidence that you have imbibed deeply of the patriarchal belief that women never have our own names. Vomit it up and admit that your wife Valerie changed her own surname, and that Amanda Marcotte uses her own name. Quit claiming that only men have surnames.
To choose your father’s name is hardly striking a blow for feminism.
To keep arguing that women don’t have real surnames of our own, only men do, is so viciously anti-feminist I’m actually finding it hard to type.
Your wife changed her own surname to another surname when she married you. Her surname today is her own surname. The surname on her birth certificate is her own surname. Your repetitive claims that only men have their own surnames and women must “choose” a surname that really belongs to a man to so fucking stupidly annoying that really, just: quit it.
baby valerie = subject to the whims of her parents who named her according to patriarchal naming conventions
adult valerie = adult with agency who views her last name as interchangable with the men in her life
baby amanda = subject to the whims of her parents who named her according to patriarchal naming conventions
adult amanda = adult with agency who has her own last name that exists outside of the men in her life
what is hard to understand about that? my father was also an abusive alcoholic. i have nothing in commmon with him. we also share a last name. i don’t know my mother’s friend very well. we share connection to a first name (long story). i wouldn’t change my first name because i don’t like my mother’s friend any more than i would change my last name just because i don’t like my dad.
but no, i don’t think everyone should be supported in the decisions they make. this concept that women’s names are interchangable depending on their married status is sexist. you don’t get to be supported for making a sexist decision. i don’t judge her for it in the least. i make sexist decisions daily. but her embracing the idea that a last name is her father’s, then it’s her first husband’s, then it’s her second husband’s, then her third, and she returns her name to the man it belongs to with every wedding ring she puts on is not a respectable decision.
(my apologies amanda, for continuing to drag you and your name into this. i don’t mean to disrespect your parents or to assume you share your dad’s last name.)
rachel:
You’ve misread me. I think Amanda has said she shares her father’s last name, and has defended it. She is an adult. Her decision not to change it endorses the patriarchal naming system.
I have said that of Val’s decision, too. I just think that only women who have changed their names to something entirely outside this naming system, such as Muhammad Ali did with the name that our racist system bestowed on him, then they are no purer than anyone else.
Shorter epistemology:
Shut up about Val’s choice, or don’t use your maiden (even the name of the name is sexist) name. It is NO less patriarchal than Valerie’s.
Seriously, Amanda is Amanda, like Madonna is Madonna. No stinking, sexist surname needed.
you’re an idiot.
You’re probably right, I’ll shut up.
I don’t have a maiden name. I have a name. I never chose to give up my name for someone else’s because of a sexist social convention. The choice to give up your name for your husband’s is not a feminist choice. Don’t get so defensive about it. When I put on lipstick and heels, that’s not a feminist act. I deal with that fact. I’m still a feminist. Valerie could be a feminist too (I don’t know if she is or not). Most feminists have made many choices in their lives that were not feminist. It’s ok.
Marle, you’re right, it wasn’t feminist, it was personal, and thirty years ago. Thank you for your understanding.
And I’m sorry I made invidious comparisons to Amanda’s or other women’s choices in this regard. I was being defensive.
And you’ll quit trying to claim that women don’t ever have surnames of our own, too? Because that would be nice.
For those of you who are not from SC, Lexington, SC is small farming town that has become an affluent suburb of Columbia.
Politically, Lexington is the reddest town in the reddest county in one of the reddest states in the union.
And yes, the overwhelming majority of the population of Lexington County is dumb as shit. These are people with far more money than sense.
Jesurgislac:
That’s an unfair characterization of my argument. I have said
But you are right. It is not anti-feminist on Amanda’s part to use the name Marcotte. The anti-feminism was her mother’s, who gave up her name, and agreed to use Marcotte for all her children. Identical to my wife’s anti-feminism. Agreed?
To choose your father’s name is hardly striking a blow for feminism.
Why are you calling it “your father’s name”? It’s not his name. He got it from his father. He’s using another man’s name, and that man in turn isn’t using his own name, but the name of another man, who also doesn’t own that name, and so on and so fucking forth.
Or, maybe, when you have a name, it’s your name, and the silly arguments morons throw out to trip you up into admitting that taking your husband’s name is no less feminist than keeping your own are a load of bullshit.
Not that you haven’t admitted that it’s not perfectly fine and feminist to take your husband’s last name; I’m just saying.
The anti-feminism was her mother’s, who gave up her name, and agreed to use Marcotte for all her children. Identical to my wife’s anti-feminism.
Well, sure. But it’s not like the name Marcotte is now tainted with the stink of anti-feminism and that Amanda has no right to use it and call herself a feminist. For her, it’s nothing more or less than her own name.